Community

Nov 21, 2012 -- 7:43PM, Maxperson wrote:

Nov 21, 2012 -- 6:47PM, Steely_Dan wrote:

Nov 21, 2012 -- 6:29PM, Maxperson wrote:

Give us paladins of every alignment and let us choose how to put them into our games. 

To me that's a cheesy compromise, but, to each his/her own.

What's cheesy about it?

Everyone needs their paladins, can't we all just be friends, what is so wrong with some things in life being exclusionary, this recent attitude of everyone's a winner is rubbish, look around you, whole lot of losers, few winners.

Nov 21, 2012 -- 7:53PM, Maxperson wrote:

Nov 21, 2012 -- 7:49PM, Steely_Dan wrote:

Everyone needs their paladins, can't we all just be friends, what is so wrong with some things in life being exclusionary, this recent attitude of everyone's a winner is rubbish, look around you, whole lot of losers, few winners.

Arbitrarily excluding people in an edition designed to be inclusionary doesn't make any sense.  There's no reason why you can't just exlude them yourself if you want to only have a LG version.

Okay, paladins of every alignment, even though that's the antithesis of the paladin.

But, ya know, screw it, lets rip the guts out of this game and turn into something else...?

Nov 21, 2012 -- 5:53PM, chaosfang wrote:

All the more reason why all of that should be campaign-specific, as opposed to generic or class-specific.

This.

Look, the same can be said of the cleric. Just in the last edition alone, clerics could choose to be amorphously divine. They didn't have to pick a god if they didn't want to. Their powers came from "sources" that sound conspicuously like the ol' paladin of non-deific origins from even further down the edition tree.

But then you get to Forgotten Realms. And that option gets "turned to the off position". All characters, especially divine ones, have a patron deity.

That's an example of campaign specific. The class should allow for both (or more) schools of thought. Pick what works best for your game's setting and move on.

Nov 21, 2012 -- 8:12PM, Rs06 wrote:

There are many who feel that the Paladin is a champion of good and justice, and would be very unhappy if that were to go away.

Then these people would have probably flipped a lid if they played..well, any edition of D&D. There have been Paladins for all alignments in every edition of D&D? Why take them away now?

And there's no compromise here. Making the Paladin non-alignment specific makes it so everyone gets exactly what they want. Want a Lawful Good Paladin? Follow a Lawful Good code and bam, you're Lawful Good. I played a Lawful Good Paladin following the code of Bahamut just fine in 4e without needing the mechanics there kicking the back of my seat the entire time. It wasn't that difficult, I just played my Paladin, then acted how he would if there were a code in place.

Nov 21, 2012 -- 8:23PM, Maxperson wrote:

Nov 21, 2012 -- 8:12PM, Rs06 wrote:

For that reason, I see this Divine Champion/Templar being am alternative that lets the Paladin still capture what the Paladin of old was

Paladins have been different than the paladin of "old" for 12 years now.  A full third of the time D&D has been around.  It's too late to change it now.

Maybe they haven't been exactly the same as the Paladins of old.  Still, all the Paladins that I have ever played are lawful/good champions of goodness and justice.  I have played since second addition and I haven't noticed much of a difference.  Still, experiences and opinions vary.

That said, would it really be bad to keep the Paladin as the Paladin of old and let a new class capture the champion of a deity?  Were the Wizard and Sorcerer of 3 and 3.5e substantially different?